I dont know. Six ft may be big, maybe I just run around with big guys so I dont notice. Now his weight was significant over my own. Twice my own weight roughly. Now granted some of that was fat, the vast majority of it is muscle. The guys strong as an ox. Hes been my boxing partner and grappling partner for about three years now.

I think any opponent is a threat. Regardless of size or weight. Its what you do with those things. I have a base strategy for nearly every body type. I think this is something everyone should have.

For someone of my partners size, Im going to fight him alot different than Nakayama, for instance. With a smaller opponent such as the one you suggested, Im going to try to use my reach. Keep him outside. Work the jab to keep him back and to setup a good power shot. Also, I want to keep him back so he doesnt get underneath me and get leverage. I also want to keep him on his feet. His light weight and short stature offers me no advantage if we are on the ground. Im going to try and press the attack, keep him on the defensive.

Now as for fighting a larger opponent, this is often much easier than people let on. First and foremost, a larger opponent has much more targets. He has more area to attack. Also, judge his footwork. The general rule of thumb is the bigger they are the slower the footwork. This isnt always true, but most of the time it holds up. If you have the better footwork you already have it in the bag, unless you just get blindsided or walk into an attack.

When I fight the bigger guy, Im going to take on the role of the shorter guy and Im going to execute a plan, based on that like the I was the small guy above. For example the large guy wants to keep me back. So I stay back. Just out of reach. I make him strike, over and over. I dodge and when I get the chance I counter as he pulls back from striking. Since his limbs are longer I attack them. i attack the knees, making his mobility suffer. If I can, I attack his elbows and shoulders to punish him when he attempts to strike. I want to work quick combinations, in and out. I want to strike coming in and I want to strike as Im backing out of his range. Since his footwork is slowe than my own I also want to work the jab, get him thinking of defense. Get him to keep moving that big frame.

You can win this fight.

_________________________
"When I let Go of who I am, I become who I might be." Lao Tzu

of coarse my own stratigy would b eslithyly different, but im familiar with a different set of techniques. but i agree with you chen. "general" stratigies that can be adapted to fit an indivdual are the way i go.

as for small people beating big people, hell man thats what i train for. yes of coarse its easier for a larger, stronger person to bowl over a smaller person. but thats a huge blanket statement, and the options that anyone has open to them in terms of a no ruled fight are endless. the human anatomy alone provides the tiny female with enough ammo to reduce any man to a winpering pile of testarone in seconds.

i was trained by a women who's 5'1 and 125 lbs, and she specialiazed in bringing down the hulks. she regularly fought and beat larger women in natonal and internatilnal competetion. she'll be the first to admit that its not easy, and she never won all the time, but she never once backed down. and thats proably one of the more important things she stressed in class, not giving up or ever being afraid. its inspirational coming from someone who pratices what they preach.

while your rn of the mill WWE wrestler type is trying to walk clean through a "small lady" he's getting kicked in the groin. if he picks her up from behind, hes getting kicked in the grion, his inner thighs pinched, his face smased by the back of her head. its endless my man, you can always win. the biggest advantage that a larger person has is a mental advantage, they feel srtong and confidant, and their small opponent feels scared and therefore misses oppertunities and just recoils in fear and does not even try. the loose the fight befor they ever begin.

a small person is goinf to have to work 5 times as hard to put a big guy down with a stomach punch. thats why they never try for it in a live situation. if the large person is taking the easy way of fighting by relying on his natural advantages, then so does the small person, by playing on the anatomical weaknesses of the big guy. now theres no such thing as a easy button, of coarse its going to be tough, and verry dangerous. but no where near imposible.

if i had to fight, HAD to fight. i simply would, and till it was over. i spend my training time getting ready for as many posible threats as i can, bring them the &%@# on!!

Quote:as for small people beating big people, hell man thats what i train for.

That's what I train for too. But I know that without rules it's a long shot when there's a big size difference (with rules it's not easy). So whereas a 5ft 2inch 120lb woman who's pretty expert at JKA style karate might not be very capable of defending herself against a large, strong attacker, chances are a big, muscular guy with mediocre skills and experience would fair much better. In other words, attributes like size, strength, athleticism and weight probably count for a lot more than proficiency in any martial arts style. An untrained heavyweight will probably stand a better chance than a highly skilled strawweight.

This might explain why some people insist that sports fighting training is applicable to real self-defence situations, whereas others say that most sports fighters couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag. It just depends on what you started out with.

But here's a question for you two that's close to my heart....

I've always wondered why they have separate categories for men and women in competition. Whilst I'm the first to admit that big people have a huge advantage (even in competition with rules), I fail to see the logic in allowing little men to fight big men and little women to fight big women yet not allow same sized men and women to compete against each other! Why do they do that - does anyone know?

In traditional karate (e.g. JKA/ITKF) the whole point is supposed to be to train to overcome dissadvantages rather than avoid them, so it's plain nuts to have separate categories for men and women!

In self-defence lessons it's even worse - who ever heard of a woman being attacked by another woman?!

So what's the gender segregation all about? I would say this is one of the few areas where I do feel that so called 'Traditional Karate' (don't know about other traditional martial arts??) isn't practicing what it preaches.

small people vr big people: i already said it once, without rules a real fight is going to be a groin smashing, eye scratching, knee kicking, neck pokeing dirty fighting affair. and in that situation, muscle and gerth is only going to protect your back, stomach, and maybe your neck. nearly all the anatomical weak spots on the human body will always be open, regardless of size. if i kick a dnd playing stick man in the pills, he is down and out. if i kick a roid useing hulk in the pills, he is down and out. no 2 ways about it, a human is weak where a human is weak. im sure you've herd the saying "focus all your strength at your opponent's weakness" thats what im talking about, and if a big athletic guy thinks me, or my smurf of a sensei is going to be a push over, then their in for something. alright. and through martial arts training its practioners whould learn the value of being in shape, and through pratice they will get in shape, they will become more athletic, stronger, faster and all that stuff. the techniqe teaches them how to use their body, a body that that should work on just as much as their technique, to forget either is lazyness and stupid if you ever plan on using what you learned.

my beef with sport fighters is that their striking technique is altered to fit the sport areana, and does not make use of proper body mechanics. its just a tag, not a punch. i know that mass moving at a speed will produce force, but they pusposfully excange follow through ability for a quick jerk of the arm, and its going to bounce off of someone bigger then them. so the bigger the sport guy, the harder he punches, in the ITKF the older you are the harder you punch. kinda....

boxing doesent have male vr female fights either, neither does soccor, or TKD. i can only speak for the ITKF and from my own expirence, and in the ITKF the only time a male and female are on the matt at the same time is during an embu. an embu is a prearanged fight between 2 people used to display both peoples ability to use their technique in a self defence situation. there are 2 catagories for embu: male vr male, and male vr female. there is not female vr female becase sensei Nishiyama dosen't feel thats that is a commen occruence. because male aggression is more commen then female. females can spar against females, case after all sparing is just a way to pratice your timing, spirit, and skill. in our dojo, men and women spar all the time, i'm not really sure why they don't do it at competetions.

and besides, sparing is not a good example for a real fight, there are rules there. so why would you want to spar against someone using rules that are going to prohibit the use of techniques effective enough to put you on even ground with a bigger guy. the rules, like you said hold the larger person back from using his advantage to its fullest, the smaller person too.

sparing bigger people is not going to teach you to deal with a large person, kihon drills based on real life situations will. as it stands now, you have never had proper training to use your training against different body types, until you do, all you can do it speculate. sparing is going to teach to you spar. thats all. there are other forms of training that are closer to the real thing, don't substute something in where its going to be inefective. get some mats out and get at it.

im not saying in any what that what your learning is inefective, please don't misunderstand me. infact im glade to see another shotokan practioner thats looking for some answers, props to ya!! after all, i've never been to your dojo, i don't know how you train at all. im just saying that these are somethings that have worked for me.

as for the gender segreation, japan karate is still sexist, i don't care who tells me different, thats what i think. the best i can figure is that competetion is just a place to test your skill level. not place to train real self defence. what you learn from your kata and sparing is suposed to be applied. and you apply it in the dojo. i don't think the idea of competeting to see who has the best chances in real life is really a good idea. we compete to see who understands the dynamics and budo best, the application is something to be explored in a dojo setting, a personal one. competetion is just a tool, sparing is just a tool, its up to you and your dojo to use the tools.

Quote:small people vr big people: i already said it once, without rules a real fight is going to be a groin smashing, eye scratching, knee kicking, neck pokeing dirty fighting affair.

I suspect that's probably true. And none of that is in our (UKTKF) syllabus. Self-defence/real fighting just isn't what traditional karate is about in my opinion (it may well be a bi-product, but it's not what the art is 'designed' for). Can anyone show me a Traditional Karate syllabus that does focus primarily on these kind of techniques? Certainly the JKA syllabus, and ours is all about physically demanding competition style techniques. Now sure, it's not all about competition, but the techniques we practice (if we adhere to the syllabus), are sport fighting techniques - or long range duelling techniques.

Now people talk of being disillusioned by Traditional Karate, but I think that's because there's a widespread misconception of what it's all about. Lots of people start out believing they're learning self-defence/real fighting. But upon close scrutiny it just doesn't hold up - there are too many flaws. And so some try to change it to be more like a self-defence system and others loose interest altogether.

Which is a big shame, because if you evaluate Traditional Karate for what it is - modern budo...a form of Shugyo, then it holds up very well to scrutiny. If you've enjoyed it for years, then why should it bother you if you find out one day that the thing that you enjoy so much isn't optimised for self-defence/street fighting? After all, loads of people will tell you that despite it being primarily a budo or self-improvement art centered around sport fighting techniques, a bi-product of training is pretty darn good self-defence capability. (Others, including little people, will find it less useful in this respect).

Quote:as for the gender segreation, japan karate is still sexist, i don't care who tells me different, thats what i think.

Whilst I think this is certainly true, when it comes to training opportunities I would say it's LESS sexist than most modern (Western) sports. It wasn't until I started karate that I began to think..."just a minute, why is it that they're telling us to aim high and refuse to let any obstacle stand in our way, yet they don't let me fight men?". And then later - "Not all of these men are better at fighting/kata than me, so why do we have to pretend they are?". Prior to karate training I just accepted it. Knew my place I suppose. Now I see it for what it is and absolutely NEVER accept it. So whether it's intentional or not, I do think karate training teaches you not to accept any kind of discrimination. Another thing I've noticed (and of course, you can't judge a whole nation by one man) is that my Japanese instructor is far less sexist when it comes to pushing women forward in karate than any of the Western instructors that I know. He just wants EVERYONE to be good regardless of age, gender or race. I really haven't noticed any discrimination against anyone.

So, getting back to the original question (sorry, I've been going off at a tangent), I think we (Traditional Karate) do fight the way we train. (I know in my club/org we do). Of course, when it comes to competition, techniques tend to be limited to kizami-zuki, gyaku-zuki and maegeri. But that's because they work. In club training people will typically train to expand their repetoir of 'workable techniques'. I'm with those that have said it's not about winning. We're told that all the time. Which is proof positive to me that it's not a self-defence system that we're learning!!!

Our typical training is 3 K's. Primarily kihon, starting with basic techniques and gradually building in more movement then working those techniques into kumite drills.

Kata is a kind of add on at the end - the display side of karate maybe...or just a discipline that preserves the style (ie. stops you optimising your kihon too much for kumite - forces you to train your techniques for kata too)? I agree that kata doesn't really fit with kumite and kihon. (Unless you ignore the syllabus and start doing your own thing in order to make it fit).

well this is where our JKA paths seperate i think. at every class, every seminar, every time im told that the spritual side of budo is just as important as the physical aspect of self defence, in fact self defence is alwasy first for us. we don't change the techniuqes much at all really, and i would suspect that our kata will look almost the same.

we train to be able to defend or selves first and foremost, and we apply what we learn in as many way as we can think of. our kumite is dictated by rules, of course. but the rules are designed to protect the fighters from obvious things like no eye gouging or groin kicks. other then that we have a clearly defined idea of what constitutes "ippon" and it is strictly followed to the letter. the idea is to foster the ability to connect with a power shot under stress. we use our kmite to teach the qualities we fell are important to be able to efectivly defend our selves.

so i feel that i have all confidane that my training in a traditional martial will help me in real life.

as for kata being an add on, i disagree completly. but hey, i would,lol. kata, kihon, and kumite are 3 different vantage points from which we can approach the same objective, spritual budo, and practial ability to survive a dangerous situation. kata is kihon and kumite, kihon is kata and kumite, and kumite is kata and kihon. its all karate training. they are all central, at least to me. your style obvisouly has its own ideas and goals, and you seem to enjoy it throughly so good on ya!!

your right, we do fight the way we train. and i don't train to develop habits in the kumite ring, developing habits to defeat another karate ka is its own end, competetion kumite. kumite is just another tool for us, we develop it around the idea that our opponents will most likely not attack like trained karate ka, so we allow any technique in our kumite, so long as it is not overtly dangerous (ie eye gouging) and it meet the requirements for "ippon" that is a technique in which both feet are planted firmly on the ground, the total body has been employed to hit the target creating maximum focus at the time im impact, and is followed by a stable stance and mental preparedness (ie zanshin, you don't loose your ballance when you hit, and you recover fast enough so that no counter can be made)

sweeps, hook punches, ridge hands, lots of stuf. you are right though, the most commen attacks are jab, raverse pnch and front kick. but we are most familiar with them due to our training, like you said we fight how we train.

i can see that if you train for the ring, then your going to be specialiazed for the ring. i mean if you don't work kata, then you'll have weak kata. if you don't work something then don't expect to be good at it. we train with different goals in mind. you can use the material your learning for other purposes, you just have to change how you work and interpurate it.

two things:1) necisarily there is no style in kickboxing becuase it is based on the kenpo style of martial arts. 2) most people fight with kickboxing type movements because it is the quickest, easiest way for us humans to move. it's normal human reflexes of how to fight.

Quote:1) necisarily there is no style in kickboxing becuase it is based on the kenpo style of martial arts.

Kickboxing is not based on kenpo. I believe kickboxing's karate base is from the kyokushin derived arts. Not 100% certain, though.

Not entirely true. Just check out Chuck Liddell's Hawaiian Kempo. His teacher, Hackleman, developed his Kempo for use in a kickboxing environment. Why do you think Chuck's style is so different from most other strikers in combat sports such as MMA and kickboxing? He uses kempo fighting principles and not just straight american, holland, thai, etc. kickboxing.